The appellant claimed his constitutional rights were violated when police disrupted a discussion he was having and seized his arm. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding:
1) The police actions were on behalf of the state, so the appellant could seek redress from the state, not just individual officers.
2) Though the police did not violate the appellant's rights to movement, expression, or assembly, seizing his arm violated his right to personal liberty.
3) An alternative legal remedy was not sufficient, as the constitution requires compensation for rights violations.
The appellant claimed his constitutional rights were violated when police disrupted a discussion he was having and seized his arm. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding:
1) The po…